Where Does GT5 Rank on the Simulator Scale

[cletus 669]

I highly doubt PD will throw away a physics system that took them 3 years to make. Plus Kaz already confirmed the TT physics for the full version of GT5.

KY also confirmed that the damage model used at TGS 2009 was going to be in GT5 as well and how did that confirmation turn out?


EDIT: Nice job on the double post. Try using the edit button next time there ace.

 

[turbomp301]

Everyone already knows GT5 is 100% realistic.....


Well, at least 6 of us do!!

 

[ralph89]

Lol

 

[Dave A]

Without having a go in any of the GT racing cars I couldn't accurately compare it to sims that specialise in GT and racing cars. Road cars and racing cars do not feel the same to drive and in Prologue we only had road cars and tuned road cars, no purpose built race cars, unless the Ford GT LM was supposed to be one but we don't really know.

I would go out on a limb though and say that GT5 is better than a lot of PC sim elitists give it credit for. Sure it falls short of iRacingg, but I think it's up there. Not the best, and there will be areas other sims are better as I'm sure areas where GT5 bests thoes. If iRacing was 100% then I'd put GT5 at between 85-90%. It real life was 100% then I'd put it much, much lower, there's still far too much you can't simulate in a computer game.

 

[pLiDeX]

for me it's under all the PC sims

 

[MatskiMonk]

It can never truly simulate the physical sensation, or mental/emotional reactions of real racing.

In GT for instance I can lap an E46 M3 around the 'ring in 7:48, whilst sratching my ass, talking to my mate, drinking a beer and pausing everyonce in a while to respond to a messenger alert, sometimes even watching another TV program on my portable TV....

..in real life, something as little as a mid corner bump during spirited driving in my 500 quid eBay special ropey old E28 520i can have my heart beating out my chest, and a rush only comparable to.. errm, other adrenaline rush causing things...

Yes, I agree it could teach you how to drive better, but does it 'simulate' racing. I doubt it.

Even if the physics were perfect, I doubt it could ever be even 80%.... in real life you dont get START > restart.

 

[Seismica]

Without having a go in any of the GT racing cars I couldn't accurately compare it to sims that specialise in GT and racing cars. Road cars and racing cars do not feel the same to drive and in Prologue we only had road cars and tuned road cars, no purpose built race cars, unless the Ford GT LM was supposed to be one but we don't really know.

I would go out on a limb though and say that GT5 is better than a lot of PC sim elitists give it credit for. Sure it falls short of iRacingg, but I think it's up there. Not the best, and there will be areas other sims are better as I'm sure areas where GT5 bests thoes. If iRacing was 100% then I'd put GT5 at between 85-90%. It real life was 100% then I'd put it much, much lower, there's still far too much you can't simulate in a computer game.

+1 👍

The bold bit was my reasoning, but i would've done the same from the other perspective. The poll wasn't very specific

 

[RyanWreck]

I voted 89%-80%, with games like rFactor and iRacing being up in the 95% area. I don't think anything can touch real-life since it is so dynamic.

That graph is funny, you must have been bored. I think that Need For Speed should stand separate from NFS: Shift since it is a bit difficult to see games like Most Wanted and Underground in the same exact category as Shift just because of the NFS title. I would say Shift sits somewhere near GT4 but still a bit closer to the arcade side.

 

[Hezekiel]

less than 80%. Graphically and Driving physics on track is close to realism but pretty much everything else dissapoints so far, and will continue to do so after release. Anyone who thinks things like reverse light simulation will improve is a fool. Kaz cares not for reverse lights...which raises the question why does he care about brake lights?

Well for your question I think the answer is quite simple really: brake lights actually make a difference during a race. Or was the question just a rhetorical one? ...

But yeah, I know what you mean. The real worry that I have is that PD is trying to do everything at the same time and finally nothing really manages to impress. So considering the amount of time put to this game, it's unbelievable that there are no reverse lights, skid marks etc.

But that is not the reason I voted only for 80-89%. The reason actually is the same that many have mentioned before - the difference between reality and a racing game. However at the same time I think GT5 (TT for example) nails the physical aspects of racing a lot better than some of the competitors at the time. Biggest one of those being the feeling of the weight of the car, which I think is a major stumbling stone in many contemporary racing games.

 

[steve30x]

less than 80%. Graphically and Driving physics on track is close to realism but pretty much everything else dissapoints so far, and will continue to do so after release. Anyone who thinks things like reverse light simulation will improve is a fool. Kaz cares not for reverse lights...which raises the question why does he care about brake lights?

You need the brake lights to know when the car in front of you brakes. Reverse lights is'nt that important because you wont be going in reverse very often.

 

[Tenacious D]

I find the Time Trial demo to be about as good as some of the current stars of racing sims, and even now, it's being improved.

 

[RyanWreck]

I can't believe some people said GT is 100% simulation.

 

[patriotzero]

80 89

 

[Radracing]

I think to even get to 80-89% you would need to have hydrolics to give some movement in the seat. But 90-99% you would really need to simulate some form of G-Force to come close to reality. So I voted only 80% and below. The physics in the game can be 100% but unless you can transffer that to force feedback in the wheel and motion in the seat it will be pretty hard to get close to over 80% IMO

 

[Raitziger]

100% simulation but only 80% of it is accurate

 

[phil_2001]

Only people that drive in real life can answer this, more, or less accurate, actually only people who drive sports cars fast can answer this and such people are few, maybe too few. Normal people with usual cars can input opinions only for relatively low speed physics. What I don't like is that you're trying to hypocritize these matters and once again is tied to your fanaticism over GT and desire to be the best of the best. Funny is when people actually start to believe these polls.

 

[TokyoDrift]

80% and below - playing the game, even with a wheel, is nothing like actually driving a car. It gives the impression you are driving a car, and you use similar skills and techniques, but that's about it.

 

[People_Know_Me]

This poll doesn't even make sense. What do the percentages even mean? Does 100% mean you can't distinguish you are racing on a PS3 vs. a real life car (other than knowing you are in your living room)? Does it mean that it's the best it can get for the console and available equipment? What does 80% mean in relation to 100%?

iRacing is as good as it gets out there, in my mind. There are a few minor tweaks to the racing that are needed for a sim racer, but other than that, how much better can it get right now? GT5 is exceptional in graphics and car models, but there are questions raised in terms of the physics, actual racing, etc. However, GT5 will certainly trump anything else out there on a console, and come relatively close to a product like iRacing, but I'm not going to say it's as good "just cuz". I'm as much a fanboy of GT5 as anyone, and have been convincing some people who have never sim raced on PC or console to get the game when it arrives...but, I'm not going to say it's something that it's not.

I'm not going to give a "percentage" without knowing the criteria, but GT can make many drastic improvements to GT5 from Prologue and the demo to make a case for "hyperrealism". GT5 will certainly bring attention to many areas in which the GT series can take it a step closer, but they will still be behind the likes of iRacing. (Never tried rFactor or any other PC sims)

 

[TokyoDrift]

I'm not going to give a "percentage" without knowing the criteria, but GT can make many drastic improvements to GT5 from Prologue and the demo to make a case for "hyperrealism". GT5 will certainly bring attention to many areas in which the GT series can take it a step closer, but they will still be behind the likes of iRacing. (Never tried rFactor or any other PC sims)

iRacing is still way behind driving a real car as well, for exactly the same reasons as GT5, so use some common sense.

 

[JosVerstappen]

I would say 90 to 99,9 % if you have this thing in your living room :

https://www.gtplanet.net/gt5-prologues-motion-simulator-at-gamescom/

 

[C-ZETA]

GT5 is an 80%-89% simulation.

 

[hampus_dh]

This is how i see it:

• 100%

is impossible simply because you can´t create G-forces and fear, or even the pain when you crash your car.

• 90%

Iracing, no other game even comes close to this in terms of simulation. Everything from the car to the track is laser-scanned with proper calculations for everything.

• 80%

All Simbin titles, (GTR2 is my favorite) Rfactor, and some other games wich i haven´t had time to play yet.

• 70%

• 60%

GT5, Forza 3. They just don´t have a simulation engine like the above. There´s actually alot of things that these games don´t have that the above do.

• 40%

• 30%

• 20%

• 10%

NFS Shift, Dirt, Grid (They don´t even deserve to be on this list but meh.)


So if your saying GT5 is 80-90% simulation then your a blind fanboy or have never tried any of the games i mentioned above. GT5 is a driving simulator, those above are racing simulators..

 

[JosVerstappen]

fear any one? (and maybe a slight bit of g-forces.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iEtjs6S80

 

[hampus_dh]

fear any one? (and maybe a slight bit of g-forces.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iEtjs6S80

Fear? no. Excitement? yea.

And you can´t even call that G-forces. I would like to see a machine that can replicate the G-forces of you sittin in the Ferrari F1 going thru Eau Rouge pullin 4-5G´s

Then we can talk

 

[eight6er]

I voted less than 80%, compared to real life and considering how much simulation I expect, compared to other sims I have played and using G25.

 

[arvin charles]

I voted 80% or less. I've driven my Miata & 911 at the track (Sebring, Daytona & St. Petersburg) and I honestly can't see a video game coming 90 + percent of being close to the real thing.

Fear? no. Excitement? yea.

And you can´t even call that G-forces. I would like to see a machine that can replicate the G-forces of you sittin in the Ferrari F1 going thru Eau Rouge pullin 4-5G´s

Then we can talk

I can see potential lawsuits if that were ever sold to the general public...Could be fun though.

 

[m00ndancer]

Fear? no. Excitement? yea.

And you can´t even call that G-forces. I would like to see a machine that can replicate the G-forces of you sittin in the Ferrari F1 going thru Eau Rouge pullin 4-5G´s

Then we can talk

I've tried a 301 for about 1 and a half hour and I was bruised on the sides of my ribs driving an F3 on brands. So quite scary actually. That thing pulls 2G side to side if you set it high enough.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Fear? no. Excitement? yea.

And you can´t even call that G-forces. I would like to see a machine that can replicate the G-forces of you sittin in the Ferrari F1 going thru Eau Rouge pullin 4-5G´s

Then we can talk

That's not possible. Why? To simulate the exact same forces as if you were going through Eau Rouge, you have to be accelerating in the exact same way, that means the only way a simulator can simulate going through Eau Rouge is if it actually moved through a path that was exactly the same as Eau Rouge.

So if the simulator is stationary in a room, it can't possibly simulate the correct forces, all it can do is jostle you around a bit.

 

[The Stalker]

I voted less than 80%. To be honest, I'd put it less than 60% if the option was there. As stated in other posts, even with the best wheel/ pedal/ cockpit set up it still wouldn't come anywhere near reality.

Until you can simulate the feel of the road through the pedals and wheel, it's never going to get close to simulation. I'm not just taking about FFB. When you're driving for real, you can feel the texture of the road and every single lump and bump through the car.

If the physics are to be the same as GT5TT, which it would seem they are, the oversteer physics really need looking at.

In Forza 3 for example, when the car goes into a slide/ drift, the wheel goes loose like it does in real life when your tyres loose traction with the road. I know FM3 isn't perfect, but at least it gets this right.

On another note, if KY thinks it's not neccessary to have reverse lights and skidmarks, he's only fooling himself that this game is 'The Real Driving Simulator'. These things are so easy to implement and have been on other games for years.

Maybe if he didn't spend so much time on 1000+ cars, (many of which will be slight variants on models with different coloured interiors) KY would have had time to put in these 2 simple elements.

 

[blkvzgo]

I voted 80-89%, that's quite a lot for me really. But I'll save my final judgement until the full game arrives and we have a bigger variety of cars to test drive. It's difficult to rate the physics with only 2 front-engined rear-wheel-drive cars.